Thank you, sir.
I'll just point out that the bill in other sections contains concepts and language that encompasses municipalities. For example, in paragraph 4(1)(f) we use the concept of “local authorities”; in paragraph 6(2)(a) we also use the concept of “local authorities”. For the information of the committee, if we inject a new term, “municipalities”.... Typically speaking, the rule of interpretation is that when a different word is used in a piece of legislation, it must mean something different. Therefore, there may be some interpretative difficulties with such an amendment.
The other thing I wish to point out to the members is that the potential addition of the word “municipalities” after “provinces” indicates that we have created some kind of a class. In the rule of statutory interpretation known as the limited class rule, when you have general words that follow specific words, the general words that follow take on the common meaning that's found in the general words. Therefore, the effect may be--whether it's litigated or not remains to be seen--to colour the interpretation of the term “other entities”, which might conceivably have the effect of excluding things that are not of a governmental nature, as are provinces and municipalities.
Further, the term “local authorities”, as we find in this bill, is also used in provincial emergency management legislation, as are various other terms to describe the things other than municipalities, such as local service boards or rural communities.
So across the country and in all the provinces there are different ways to describe things other than municipalities. I merely point out to the members that there may be some interpretive confusion or difficulties.
Thank you.